[MAECIANUS libro septimo fideicommissorum. ] §28.5.87.prIam dubitari non potest suos quoque heredes sub hac condicione institui posse, ut, si uoluissent, heredes essent, si heredes non essent, alium quem uisum erit eis substituere: negatumque hoc casu necesse esse sub contraria condicione filium exheredare, primum quia tunc tantum id exigeretur, cum in potestate eius non esset, an heres patri existeret, exspectantis extrinsecus positae condicionis euentum, deinde quod, etsi quacumque posita condicione deberet filius sub contraria condicione exheredari, in proposito ne possibilis quidem repperiri posset, certe, si uerbis exprimeretur, inepta fieret: huic enim condicioni 'si uolet, heres esto' quae alia uerba contraria concipi possunt quam haec 'si nolet heres esse, exheres esto'? quod quam sit ridiculum, nulli non patet.
[MAECIANUS, in the seventh book on Trusts.] It can no longer be doubted that one's own heirs (sui heredes) also can be appointed under this condition, namely, that if they wish, they shall be heirs, and if they are not heirs, another whomsoever it seems good shall be substituted for them; and it has been denied that in this case it is necessary to disinherit a son under a contrary condition. This is first because that would only be required when it was not within his power whether he should exist as heir to his father, as he awaits the outcome of a condition placed from the outside; and secondly because, even if a son ought to be disinherited under a contrary condition whenever any condition is placed, in the present case not even a possible one could be found, or certainly, if it were expressed in words, it would become absurd. For to this condition 'if he wishes, let him be heir', what other contrary words can be conceived than these: 'if he does not wish to be heir, let him be disinherited'? How ridiculous this is, is obvious to everyone.
§28.5.87.1Non ab re autem hoc loco uelut excessus hic subiungetur suis ita heredibus institutis 'si uoluerint heredes esse' non permittendum amplius abstinere se hereditate, cum ea condicione instituti iam non ut necessarii, sed sua sponte heredes exstiterunt.
Furthermore, it will not be out of place to add here, as if by way of digression, that when own heirs have been appointed in this manner, 'if they wish to be heirs', they must no longer be permitted to abstain from the inheritance, since having been appointed under that condition they have now become heirs not as necessary heirs, but of their own free will.
sed et ceteris condicionibus, quae in ipsorum sunt potestate, si sui pareant, ius abstinendi adsequi non debent.
Moreover, also under other conditions which are within their own power, if the own heirs comply with them, they ought not to obtain the right of abstaining.